The SIA defines the immediate area for
its assessment by taking 22 small statistical areas around the site and then
compares Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures for this combined area
with the Sydney LGA and Greater Sydney. The problem with this approach is that
the area defined includes some of the most well-off parts of the area and some
of the least well off. This is clearly seen if you look at the ABS Socio-Economic
Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) that ranks each of these small statistical areas
according to relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. Statistical
areas towards Mitchell Road and Fountain Street Alexandria rank in the most
advantaged areas and those exclusively public housing areas on the Waterloo
Estate in the most highly disadvantaged. Combine the areas and they look
average, but this hides important impacts on those most likely to be impacted and
with least capacity to deal with any impact. As a result, conclusions drawn
from the SIA’s approach do not explore potential impacts on surrounding public
housing tenants nor how these impacts might be mitigated.
Where there are significant differences
within an area, as there is in Waterloo and surrounding Alexandria and Redfern,
it is not adequate to look at a statistical average. Different communities will
possibly be impacted differently by a development. The SIA does not look at the
potential impact on the most marginalised, who also will live closest to the
re-development. As a consequence, the SIA ignores even acknowledging the
adverse interactions in the earlier stage of this development between the
developer and its local neighbours and local public drinkers.
REDWatch has strongly suggested in its
SIA interview that rather than pay to have off duty police at the site so that
the workers will work, the developer needs to train its contractors how to deal
with people who have suffered trauma and have complex issues as well as having mechanisms
for de-escalating situations that arise. The SIA does not even mention this
historical social impact nor how it might be better handled in the future.
The community facilities section of the
report is also not up to the standard the community should expect of an SIA.
For example, three Aboriginal Organisations (AMS, AHC and Mudgin-Gal) are mis-located
on the facilities map in the report. Other key community facilities like
Counterpoint Community Services’ The Factory and its Multicultural Services are
not included at all, along with a number of other local NGO services. The community
facilities recognised include the LAHC owned James Cook Community Garden and
LAHC owned Waterloo Green described in the report as “an open community park
situated to the north east of the redevelopment” – land which after a new
Waterloo Park is built is most likely destined for redevelopment rather than
staying LAHC owed open space and gardens. Some local health facilities have
been included while others ignored.
All of this supposedly exists to
identify what is already in the area and hence what needs to be provided as
community facilities by this development. While the Waterloo Metro OSD only
expects to generate a need for 17 children aged 0-4 the SIA argues that additional
childcare facilities will be needed to service the population increase
associated with ongoing development in Waterloo and the OSD is keen to provide
those childcare places (which a provider will undoubtably pay for). It is
instructive then to look at how the SIA looks at child care facilities in the
immediate area.
The SIA says “A desktop audit of
childcare facilities found that there are no childcare facilities within 400m
of the site, specifically none within the immediate social locality, as
indicated by the Social Locality map in Chapter 5. The closest facilities are
SDN Redfern, SDN Waterloo, and The Green Elephant Waterloo, each located
approximately 1.5 km away. Refer to Appendix B.”
So those who know the area will know
that SDN Waterloo (Louis Barker) is within 300m of Waterloo Metro. They would
also know that SDN Redfern is about 450m away and Green Elephant Waterloo
within 800m. A quick check of Google maps shows the following are also within an
800m radius – Eveleigh Early Leaning Preschool, KU Sunbeam Pre School, KU James
Cahill, Honey Bird Childcare and Wunanbiri Preschool. It is particularly
worrying that an incorrect SIA can be used to advance a developer’s preference
for the provision of facilities over other possible community facilities uses.
One of the flaws in the earlier
community facilities studies was to not assess the suitability of the buildings
used by existing community facilities and to assume that they could continue to
provide services from those locations into the future, when many organisations
are not in premises that are fit for purpose or for which they are paying rent
not covered in their funding. The option of providing community facilities for
a not-for-profit agency should have been considered if the community facilities
review had adequately assessed facilities rather than the services they managed
to provide.
It is also worth mentioning that
classic SIA approach for assessing the accessibility of local facilities by if
they fall within certain radii of the development is flawed if there are major
physical barriers, like the railway corridor, to access a facility. So, the SIA says Carriageworks is within 1 km
of the site when by foot or car it is actually 1.3km away and will remain so
until the community gets the NSW Government to deliver the 2004 promised bridge
across the railway corridor at Carriageworks.
There are variations of the Social
Impact Assessment for each of the DAs, above we have drawn on those from the Second Amending Concept SIA. We encourage readers to have their
own look at this report as we are sure that there will be other areas where
people will have concerns. For example, we have not gone into the grading
within the report where the assessing of increased housing supply in accessible
locations? is assessed as a “high positive” when the oft referred to affordable
housing only remains affordable for 10 years.
At a basic level community members need
to be able to recognise their community accurately described in such reports. There
is a long history of inadequate desktop community facilities and social sustainability
reports for Waterloo that have been roundly criticised by REDWatch and other
agencies.
In part this seems to come from
developers expecting consultants to do cheap desktop studies requiring little
understanding of what is on the ground. SIAs need to accurately assess impact,
especially on those most impacted and seriously address how any impacts can be
mitigated. This is especially so when dealing with vulnerable communities like
those in public housing.
Hopefully when Stockland presents its SIA
for Waterloo South, the SIA will not contain such fundamental errors and Stockland
will insist on a much more robust SIA that assesses the impact of the development
on the public housing tenants directly impacted by the redevelopment and how
those impacts can be mitigated.
If you want to look further at the
demographics of the area you can look at different statistical areas for your
local area at https://atlas.id.com.au/sydney/
Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 7 January 2026. On 12 January 2026 REDWatch added the additional concern about the SIA and EIS on this project.
Waterloo Metro Developer reduces community facilities
The Waterloo Metro developer wants to reduce community facilities
floorspace by 994sqm. That is space that could be used by local community
controlled not for profits. The table opposite compares what is approved for
the site with what the developer is asking to change.
Also, the Social Impact Assessment says: “This Second
Amending Concept DA alone will not generate enough demand for a purpose-built
childcare facility” (Concept SIA p40). But the developer only wants to deliver
a “community centre in the form of a childcare centre” (Concept SSDA p40) even
though the developer’s own figures show they do not generate enough childcare
need to justify its childcare proposal.
There are community-controlled organisations that need
low-cost permanent facilities but don’t have them. There are others that
operate from inappropriate spaces to deliver their services. At the same time
the Waterloo Metro developer is trying to avoid providing that kind of
community facilities benefit.
Actual community facilities have to be provided to a
non-government organisation or a Council while health facilities and childcare
facilities can be provided to for profit providers at commercial rents.
Understandably developers prefer spaces they can maximise income from.
If you don’t think the developer should not get away with
this change, we encourage you to object irrespective of any other views about
the project you might have. If you have already made a submission but missed
this element, because it is not spelt out in the text of the proposal, please
make a short additional submission on this.
In REDWatch’s last email update, we drew attention to the
Metro Site Second Amending Concept Social Impact Assessment (SIA) that did not
properly look at the needs of local community facilities and also
misrepresented the amount of child care facilities in proximity to the Waterloo
Metro site.
You can object to the change of community facilities change
of use proposed in the Second Amending Concept Plan (SSD-79307765) at https://www.planningportal.nsw.gov.au/major-projects/projects/waterloo-metro-quarter-second-amending-concept
Please also note that the Planning NSW website is now
showing 15th January as the cut off for submissions rather than the
initially advised 14th January.
REDWatch apologises that the reduction in community
facilities space has only recently been identified. While it appears in this
table the reasons for the reduction is not covered in the text of the EIS. As a
result, it was not covered in our earlier email updates hence this small update
to alert you.
Source: Adapted from REDWatch Email Update 12 January 2026